Old Testament myths?

[Orthodox Christian]

I, like many other people have found it puzzling that the God of the OT seems unlike the God of the NT who is defined as love. I have really shelved my concerns because I can't find an answer. However, recently I have been thinking that maybe certain attributes that the OT describe as God's might have been an invention. For example where God orders Israel to kill every living thing in the case of the Amelakites. Could it be that Israel attacked these people, commited atrocities and then later, on writing about it in the Bible they suggested that Gold told them to do it, when in fact he didn't? What are your thoughts? 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I, like many other people have found it puzzling that the God of the OT seems unlike the God of the NT who is defined as love. I have really shelved my concerns because I can't find an answer. However, recently I have been thinking that maybe certain attributes that the OT describe as God's might have been an invention. For example where God orders Israel to kill every living thing in the case of the Amelakites. Could it be that Israel attacked these people, commited atrocities and then later, on writing about it in the Bible they suggested that Gold told them to do it, when in fact he didn't? What are your thoughts? 

It fits well imo with LDS doctrine that scripture is not inerrant.

The Bible was written and edited by countless individuals.  I don’t see it as likely they would all have acted like puppets and only included what God had actually done and said rather than their own wishful interpretations of their histories.  

[manol]

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I, like many other people have found it puzzling that the God of the OT seems unlike the God of the NT who is defined as love. I have really shelved my concerns because I can't find an answer. However, recently I have been thinking that maybe certain attributes that the OT describe as God's might have been an invention. For example where God orders Israel to kill every living thing in the case of the Amelakites. Could it be that Israel attacked these people, commited atrocities and then later, on writing about it in the Bible they suggested that Gold told them to do it, when in fact he didn't? What are your thoughts? 

I think you are absolutely correct.  I think the Old Testament is not very trustworthy.  Let me elaborate:

Animal sacrifice is something else that apparently did not come from God.  In the late 1800's a scroll was found which was evidently the oldest known copy of Deuteronomy and animal sacrifice is among the things completely absent from it.  Here is the interview where I first came across this information; the relevant part starts at 8:34 and goes for another 5 minutes or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyivXDVwJdc&t=514s

For a deeper dive, look for interviews with Ross K. Nichols, who wrote a book on the subject entitled "The Moses Scroll". 

Imo this is actually far more earth-shaking than it may appear at first glance:  If animal sacrifice was a self-serving invention of the priest class, then the teaching that Christ was the great and final blood sacrifice is called into question.  Personally I have no problem with this, but Jesus being crucified as a blood sacrifice for sin is a core belief of many if not most Christian religions.  Some road maps would have to be re-drawn; I think it would be for the better in the long run.

Edited 6 hours ago by manol

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I, like many other people have found it puzzling that the God of the OT seems unlike the God of the NT who is defined as love. I have really shelved my concerns because I can't find an answer. However, recently I have been thinking that maybe certain attributes that the OT describe as God's might have been an invention. For example where God orders Israel to kill every living thing in the case of the Amelakites. Could it be that Israel attacked these people, commited atrocities and then later, on writing about it in the Bible they suggested that Gold told them to do it, when in fact he didn't? What are your thoughts? 

Hi Orthodox Christian, 

I am for shelving these concerns. We have to not expect to find an answer that will satisfy everyone. Many take solace in rejecting Christianity because of passages like those to which you are referring. I have been looking for answers that partially satisfy me.

This week, the first reading at Mass is taken from the Book of Wisdom 12. It is a defense of God against what you describe as happening to the Amalekites. In Acts 13:19, St. Paul mentions that the Israelites destroyed seven nations in the course of gaining possession of the Promised Land. There is no hint of divine displeasure at the thoroughness of the task in that New Testament text. Wisdom 12 sheds abundant light on the truly wicked, and safe to say, demonic practices of these nations. The author also shows that judgment did not come upon this people suddenly and all at once, but gradually, with time for repentance. That is about as far as it goes. But it shows that this question you ask was already being discussed in the centuries before Christ.

Establishing that God gave these nations opportunities for repentance, we can be confident that if upon seeing the Israelites approach, had they repented like the Ninevites at the preaching of Jonah, mercy would have been granted. Perhaps repentance came to late to be saved from earthly destruction. I believe we will see all of the children and hope for many of the slain among these nations, that they will be praising God eternally for saving them from their sins, just like the rest of the saints in heaven. 

Wisdom 12 is very strong as are many other passages in both Testaments warning that no one need worry about whether God is righteous when He is judged. He doesn't seem obliged to give a complete account at this time. I think it could be argued that the Son's life, passion, and death should be enough to make it reasonable trust His wisdom and goodness? Will we turn away in this life because we have judged this God to be evil before we see the fruit of what He was doing? Many do, and many will.

I am putting it on the shelf, awaiting further revelation. This will come at the Day of Judgment. It isn't God's raw power alone that will cause souls to bend the knee before their Maker. They will not be fearing a God that has a blemished record. They will be loving a God who has shown them His superabundant goodness, mercy, grace, and love for every soul that has ever been conceived. That is my faith. I admit that I am only partially satisfied with this answer. I look forward to seeing more of an answer, even in this life, but certainly the next. 

Certainly the New Testament opens up our eyes to idea that everyone is a brother. There is that passage from our Lord where, I paraphrase Him saying, "You have heard it said to love your friends and hate your enemies, but I say..." Jesus definitely gave the Christians a different eye with which to view our enemies. Other teachings in the Old Testament are not corrected, or properly developed until the New. The Ten Commandments do teach love, according to St. Paul in Romans. And the Good Samaritan who was more in the dark than a levite and a priest, will get his reward because he obeyed the law of his conscience and took pity on the man at the side of the road. All will be judged according to our consciences, including Amalekites. Who besides God could untangle the varying factors of every generation and every individual since our first parents? Let us take courage and be at peace, and not be precipitate enough to think God can't explain what happened with the Amalekites, if we will be patient.      

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It fits well imo with LDS doctrine that scripture is not inerrant.

The Bible was written and edited by countless individuals.  I don’t see it as likely they would all have acted like puppets and only included what God had actually done and said rather than their own wishful interpretations of their histories.  

Unfortunately for us, we can't wiggle out that way. And I would urge that difficulties abound, and we have to try to resolve them before we would declare something in our canons to be in irresolvable conflict. As a Latter-day Saint, I would at least wait for a Latter-day revelation to say any specific teaching is erroneous. Otherwise, we would have all kinds of teachings being rejected from both Testaments. How can a virgin have a child? How are we going to be resurrected with the same body when our original molecules are scattered all over creation? Ad nauseam.

But of course, with care, I have to grant the LDS have a mechanism by which you could say the passage is fallible, or uninspired (not speaking as a prophet) 

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, manol said:

I think you are absolutely correct.  I think the Old Testament is not very trustworthy.  Let me elaborate:

Animal sacrifice is something else that apparently did not come from God.  In the late 1800's a scroll was found which was evidently the oldest known copy of Deuteronomy and animal sacrifice is among the things completely absent from it.  Here is the interview where I first came across this information; the relevant part starts at 8:34 and goes for another 5 minutes or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyivXDVwJdc&t=514s

For a deeper dive, look for interviews with Ross K. Nichols, who wrote a book on the subject entitled "The Moses Scroll". 

Imo this is actually far more earth-shaking than it may appear at first glance:  If animal sacrifice was a self-serving invention of the priest class, then the teaching that Christ was the great and final blood sacrifice is called into question.  Personally I have no problem with this, but Jesus being crucified as a blood sacrifice for sin is a core belief of many if not most Christian religions.  Some road maps would have to be re-drawn; I think it would be for the better in the long run.

Hi manol. I have to take issue.

Jesus is the "Lamb of God" slain from the foundation of the world. That hearkens back of course, to the Paschal Sacrifice in Exodus.

Out of the first 128 verses where the word "sacrifice" occurs, one is from Genesis (Abraham and Isaac). One hundred and twenty three are from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Four are from Deuteronomy. Almost all of the discussion about about animal sacrifice is found in the middle three books of the Pentateuch. One of the two in Deuteronomy appears to make reference to animal sacrifice, one is about making sure to share the best part of the sacrifice with the priests, and I am think that the last one wasn't about animal sacrifice at all. Our canonical Scriptures don't have anything significant to say in Deuteronomy either. 

Regards,

Rory   

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I, like many other people have found it puzzling that the God of the OT seems unlike the God of the NT who is defined as love. I have really shelved my concerns because I can't find an answer. However, recently I have been thinking that maybe certain attributes that the OT describe as God's might have been an invention. For example where God orders Israel to kill every living thing in the case of the Amelakites. Could it be that Israel attacked these people, commited atrocities and then later, on writing about it in the Bible they suggested that Gold told them to do it, when in fact he didn't? What are your thoughts? 

From our Bible Dictionary: The Amalekites were "An Arab tribe that lived in the desert of Paran between the Arabah and the Mediterranean and at one time seem to have ranged as far north as Mount Ephraim (Judg. 5:14; 12:15). The Amalekites were at constant war with the Hebrews from the time of Moses (Ex. 17:8, etc.) till their power was broken by Saul and David (1 Sam. 15; 27:8; 30; 2 Sam. 8:12), and their last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites (1 Chr. 4:43)."

Deuteronomy 25:17-19 -> "17 ¶ Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
19 Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."

The Amalekites were apparently just as evil as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. You might want to review the Wikipedia article on this tribe. They were rather like Hamas and that ilk. 

And this didn't happen in a vacuum. I seem to recall a story in which God sent a flood to destroy all of humanity except for the ones who boarded Noah's Ark. Those dying in the flood included men, women, and children, as well as animals. When you consider what will be going on during the tribulation leading up to the Lord's Second Advent, with all the natural disasters attendant upon many people (see the Book of Revelation), how many men, women, and children will perish then? I remember that something like a quarter million people were killed in the tsunami of 2004. Some have called the earthquake that spawned that tsunami an "act of God." 

Jesus coming to softly proclaim the everlasting gospel does not contradict the distressing events in the Old Testament.

 

 

[manol]

42 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi manol. I have to take issue.

And you're doing so in a most courteous and non-confrontational way! 

 

42 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Out of the first 128 verses where the word "sacrifice" occurs, one is from Genesis (Abraham and Isaac). One hundred and twenty three are from Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Four are from Deuteronomy. Almost all of the discussion about about animal sacrifice is found in the middle three books of the Pentateuch. One of the two in Deuteronomy appears to make reference to animal sacrifice, one is about making sure to share the best part of the sacrifice with the priests, and I am think that the last one wasn't about animal sacrifice at all. Our canonical Scriptures don't have anything significant to say in Deuteronomy either.

Thank you for pointing that out.  And I acknowledge that animal sacrifice being absent from the oldest copy of Deuteronomy is not "proof" that it was a later invention of the priest class.